25' buffer around ponds

Don Staples <dstaples at livingston.net> wrote:
>I would see a five member panel for directors, government (not two seats
>for state and federal), corporate (hopefully at the working level),
>consultant, and land owner. For breaking a tie vote, I would have a
>wild card, ellected at large by the licensed members. Once established
>it would be beyond the reach of the state, just as the bar is now.
>Those of you familiar with lawyers would recognize that the bar controls
>their profession a hell of a lot tighter that any governmental agencies.
Great suggestions, Don! I like the idea of proportional representation,
particularly in this instance. So I went through the mailing list of the
Massachusetts Association of Professional Foresters (not licensees, just an
association) and sorted the members by category.
Here's the breakdown: consultants 58%, state and federal 20%, industrial 6%,
academic 6%, organizational 5%, municipal watershed 5%. For a five member
board, that would mean 3 consultants, 1 state and federal, and 1 `other.`
Unfortunately, the proposed Massachusetts licensing regulations call for 1
state, 1 private sector (whatever that means), 1 academic, 1 landowner, and 1
consumer/organizational. (Numbers and categories from Joe since I can't find
my copy. Of course he used different terminology. <G>)
They don't even say `consultant` even though 58% of the MAPF are consultants
and that's who the whole thing is about! Unbelievable!
>In Texas the state bar has a resolution board that is appointed and does
>not necessarily comes from the profession. It considers claims against
>the lawyers. In my county the county democratic chairman (he owns a
>local gas company) is on the board of resolution for the bar, and sits
>in judgement on lawyers. Unfortunately, there is no capital punishment!
>>If you want to have the stroke of a true profession, take a page from
>the lawyers book, but keep our ethics and morals.
Right. We need a dispute resolution board too, particularly if the burros are
going to be downsized. With the authority of the state diminished or gone,
there needs to be a body with some real weight and power. Here's where the
academics, landowners, loggers and `consumer/organizational` groups could play
a role--not on the licensing board itself.
Karl Davies